AMG4life

or is the e 55 too cheap?? they cost about the same but the e 55 has all the goodies such as SBC, active suspension, quad exhausts, much nicer interior that the clk doesnt have. oh did i just forget to mention it also has a superchaged engine that pumps out 460 something hp?

i might get a new clk 55 as i totaled my 330ci. i need to know why it cost as much as a e55.

Harris

I think the biggest reason is it is a Sport Coupe. Customers who will buy a CLK are mainly "yuppies". A family of 4 will not buy a CLK as their main transportation vehicle. E55s are for high executives in their 40's who think the S-class is too old. Their target customers are broader.

FInality

Still does not justify the price though. The E500 starts about $3K USD more than the CLK500. Granted they are not the same car but the E55 offers so much more for a ~20K USD price jump.

I understand your paying for better brakes, interior & exterior imporvements but they really need to drop the price by about $10,000 to get customers rolling in.

ndabunka

We would all like an AMG for the price of a CLK500 but it just isn't going to happen. I think you've got he pricing wrong on the e55, it's 80K. The CLK55 is 65K. That's a 15K price difference in my calculator. If you've got a line on 355's for the same price (same year) as the CLK55, I'll take fifty of them!

TripleCap

MSRP on a base 2003 CLK 55 is 69,500, not 65,000.

FInality

The W209 CLK55 starts @ $70,470 and I dont think that even includes the gas guzzler tax.

You might be right about the E55 pricing but there is no official word yet so I guess that point is mute.

MikeL

when we bought our CLK500, we were also considering a E500... our salesman would have given us a great deal on the E500, about 5-6K cheaper than the CLK..

sf49ers79

Which one faster clk 55 or e 55?
other question is which one more expensive clk 55 or e55?

MikeL

E55 no doubt.. the E55 is faster than the SL55... my mom has a w208 CLK55... the new one has like 20 more hp than the old one.. this car is already fast, think what happens when u stick a blower on it.. i raced my S54 M roadster against the CLK55.. from a light.. i win, if i nail the launch... on the freeway however.. its a different story.. 80mph roll... up to about 130? the V8 pulls like a monster.. i can keep up.. but i cant pass..

sf49ers79

eventhough e55 is a sedan... it still can beat a sport car like clk55? WOW... thx for the info mike

Ronald

The CLK 55 will be faster than the E55 on almost every race track.

Ronald

sf49ers79

so you're saying that clk55 is faster than e55... isn't it e55 has more HP?

Ronald

What has HP to do with being fast? The CLK 55 may not accellerate quite as fast as the E 55, but it is fast enough to keep up. (even an SLK 32 has no problems keeping up with a SL 55 up to ~200 kph). On a race track you'll have the advantage of a lighter, more agile car with a more direct gas / break pedal response and a more sportive chassis.

Ronald

sf49ers79

so you're saying that clk 55 is faster than e55? i dont really know about this stuff. i was just trying to get info and thx for the info.. can i get anybody else think?

Ronald

I haven't taken an E55 to the track personally, but the CLK 55 is faster on a lot of race tracks than my SL 55 and so is the new F1 safety car (CLK 55) compared to the old one (SL 55) according to the driver (Bernd Mayländer).

Ronald

MikeL

i agree.. thats why mercedes past and current DTM race car is a CLK.. in W208 and W209.. respectively... i drive my moms CLK55 all the time.. its a w208.. but it hauls... it has neck snapping torque.. id say.. the E55.. is more of a straight line car.. there is no brake feel, steering, suspension.. everything is controlled by electronics.. the CLK55 is more of a rewarding experience than a E55.. i drive a w202 C230K, and a S54 M roadster.. the CLK55 has torque and power in all levels on the rpm range.. just smahs on the pedal.. and it goes.. all my cars in my house are benz's.. i have driven so many.. all different types class, and engines.. the only thing i dont like about mercedes is.. that they need to offer a manual tranny in their AMG cars.. if that was the case.. id prob never have gotten then BMW..

Ronald

There is no manual gearbox on the market that could handle the torque and survive a Mercedes-Benz reliability test.

Furthermore it would be pretty difficult to handle the clutch with this much torque seeing the ESP-light all the time (or burning your tires).

The M-Mode in the new models is good enough for me, even though I'd love to have something like the Audi / VW DSG.

Ronald

MikeL

.. i love mercedes cars.. we have 4 benzs, and one bmw.. i test drove the new C and SLK 6 speeds.. i can say.. mercedes gearboxes and clutches are inferior to that of BMW.. they only offer stick in cars that are underpowered.. i wish i could have got a C32, or SLK32, in manual.. the CLK55.. was way out of my price range for my car.. but nothing seems more rewarding then having a third pedal.. just as long its not in LA traffic..

Ronald

Mercedes-Benz develops the automatic gearboxes themselves. The manual gearboxes are bought from other manufactures and therefore can't compete with BMW's.

If you really, really want a manual gearbox in your AMG, then contact MKB. They have equipped some AMGs with manual gearboxes in the past and still advertise it on the German section of their homepage for the engines M113, M119 and M120.

Ronald

MikeL

i looked into te conversion.. i know Renntech does them also.. very costly tho.. about $20K usd.. i even took my C class.. to BRABUS in Newport Beach, talked with the sales guy.. basically.. for me to turn my car into a BRABUS fire breathing monster.. i would need roughly.. $80K usd.. for 5.8L engine, tranny, brakes, and rims.. etc.. all i thought was for that id rather buy a whole new car.. 996, or M5, or E55.. i couldnt justify spending that much for that.. then theres the Lorinser turbo kit that cost 10-12K installed.. and only pushes me up to about 260 hp..? i chose to buy a new car.. a manual, 315hp inline 6, it had the power and tranny i lusted for, and was about $50k.. very happy with my choice..

SlaggY

Sorry,

But what is the start price of an 2003 E55?

trock3155

I think there are a few people on in this thread that are confusing the new W211 E55(2003 and above) and the recently retired W210 E55. The new W211 E55 which is just about to be released is recieving the 5.5 liter supercharged engine that is in the new SL 55. This means 469 hp, whch will blow any CLK55 out of the water. However, the old E55(which I think a lot of you are thinking of) has the old 5.5 liter V8 just like the W208(also recently retired) CLK55.

In a straight line, the old CLK 55 will actually lose to the old E55, despite the E's 250(+/-) lbs weight disadvantage. This has alot to do with the much wider rear tires of the E55 vs the CLK55 (275mm vs 245mm). Combine this with the CLK's lighter weight and you have much more wheelspin and less off the line quickness. On a track, the CLK is more athletic and should beat the E55 without too much difficulty.

I also saw someone mention how the 20 hp that the new W209 CLK55 will really make it move. This is not really true, as the new CLK 55 will have 300 extra pounds to pull. In fact the new CLK should be slower(albeit not that much). The new 320 is already slower than the old one. MB even claims slower 0-60 times for the new CLK55 on their website (4.9 for the 208 and 5.2 for 209).

I hope this helps/

Asa

Improviz

I agree that the E55's extra weight and fatter rear tires give it an off-the-line advantage, but this will vary depending upon temperature and road surface: I actually managed to get my CLK55 off the line pretty quickly with minimal wheelspin many times, in which case it would have taken down the (old) E55 due to its lighter weight. And from a roll, where traction isn't an issue, the weight advantage should allow it to walk away from the E55.

As to the new CLK55: the added horsepower is just enough to compensate for the added weight, meaning that the horsepower-to-weight ratio is the same as before. In a straight line, it should be comparable to the previous CLK55; the tests I've seen from overseas have identical results as before.

Cheers.

bodyart27@aol

"Asa" summed it up perfectly. With only 245s in the rear for the CLK55 (vs 275 for the E55) magazines usually have 0-60 in the E55 in the high 4s and the CLK55 in the low 5s.

Once you hit the 1/4 mile you will see the trap speeds start to even out (equal horsepower essentially), though the E55 is in most cases quicker time due to the hole shot off the line (I have always heard a 10th of sec in the first 60' = 2 tenths off your total 1/4 mile time).

Depending on the configuration of the road course, I would expect the CLK to be able to hussle around a road couse a bit better....

IMHO

sf49ers79

its 20000-25000 more than E500? correct me if i'm wrong